Previous Page  724 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 724 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

sub-section, and the instrument contained a certifi

cate to that effect.

It was pointed out to the

Revenue Commissioners by the Council that this

in effect would mean that every conveyance on sale

stamped at the lower rate would have to be adjudged

duly stamped, as a subsequent purchaser would not

be Entitled to rely on the certificate in the deed as

conclusive evidence that it was properly stamped

at the lower rate. Following the representations

by the Council, the Minister for Finance on the

Committee Stage accepted an amendment to sub

section 13 (4)

the effect of which is that the exemp

tion of an instrument from the higher rate of duty

depends not upon the fact that the grantee or trans

feree falls within the exempted categories, but upon

the incorporation in the instrument of a certificate

to

the effect mentioned in the sub-section.

In

other words a subsequent purchaser is not bound

to inquire as to the accuracy or otherwise of the

statements in the certificate provided that the form

of the certificate is in accordance with Section 13 (4).

CALENDAR AND LAW

DIRECTORY, 1948

MEMBERS who have not already sent in an order

form for the Calendar should do so immediately if

they wish to secure a copy. Price 7/6, Post Free 8/-

EFFECT OF GUARANTEED

CHEQUES

THE Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal ot

September zyth contained a review of Paget's Law

of Banking, jth Edition, published by Butterworth

& Co.—price

255.

The

review printed

the

following extract from the book :

" It may be taken

that the marking of a cheque at the instance of a

customer does not in this country involve any

direct or immediate liability on the part of thr Banker

to the payee or any subsequent holder of the cheque.

The marking does not possess the essential char

acteristics of an acceptance required by

the Bills

of Exchange Act."

Solicitors completing sales

on behalf of vendors usually accept a Bank draft

or a cheque " marked good " by a bank in exchange

for the title deeds and when accepting a marked

cheque undoubtedly assume that it is as good as a

Banker's draft. The passage from the standard

work quoted above clearly implies that this assump

tion is incorrect. The following are passages from

other standard works on the subject: " A custom

has grown up among bankers themselves of marking

cheques as good for the purposes of clearance,

by which they become bound to one another.

As between the bankers themselves, accordingly,

this marking has an effect analogous to that of the

acceptance of a bill, but it does not give the holder

of the cheque a right against the banker who has

marked it." Hart's Law of Banks 4th Edition,

Vol i, Page 541.

" In trie absence of English authority it is difficult

to say what is the exact legal effect in this country

ot marking cheques ; but it is submitted that such

marking is not equivalent to an acceptance by the

banker, and that notwithstanding s. 75 of the Bills

of Exchange Act, 1882, the customer who has

requested his banker to mark a cheque cannot

countermand its payment.

It has been suggested

that

the banker would be bound to honour rhe

cheque on the ground of estoppel, if any one dealt

with his client on the faith of the marking and wire

thereby damnified." Grant's Law of Banks, 7th

Edition, Page 43.

"It was formerly the practice in this country to

use marked cheques for making payments against

documents of title, but, though the practice cannot

be said to be obsolete,

it is more usual at the

present day to make such payments by means of

transfer cheques at the Bank of England or bankers'

drafts ...... If the marking is not an acceptance

it is difficult to see on what grounds the banker can

be held liable." (Byles on Bills, zoth Edn Page 21).

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1947

Section 33. Where—

(a)

a person sells or lets a dwelling in which

to his knowledge a person has been re

siding at any time during the preceding

three months while suffering

from an

infectious disease, and

(£) he did not before selling or letting the

dwelling give in the prescribed manner an

infected premises notice

to

the district

medical officer for the district in which the

dwelling is situated,

he shall be guilty of an offence under this section

and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof

to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the dis

cretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term

not exceeding three months or to both such fine and

such imprisonment.

Section 34- Where—

(a) the occupier of a dwelling (not being the

owner thereof) ceases to occupy the dwell

ing, and

(b)

a person has, to the knowledge o<

the

occupier, been residing in the dwelling at

any time during the preceding three months

while suffering from an infectious disease,

and

(f)

the occupier did not either before or

immediately after ceasing to occupy the

43